Half-Life² graphics vs. Painkiller graphics

aeroripper

Tank
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,234
Reaction score
0
I just got done playing Painkiller (singleplayer demo 3) and they added a bunch of stuff like light blooms and stuff like that. The graphics do look pretty good. Also i'm not sure if painkiller on full settings is any idication on how hl2 will run on full settings but i can max out everything (minus AA or AF) and it plays pretty smooth, even on my system.

Do you guys think half-life² graphics will be superior, if so in what ways and how will it be more taxing on the PC.

Specs:
AMD XP 2400+ (2ghz)
Radeon 9800 pro 128
1 gig of DDR333 pc2700
XP home
omega 4.10 catalysts
 
half life 2 look more better
in my opinion

but painkiller is a nice game
nice and fast bunny hopping game ^^
 
if think hl2 will look better just in the art itself which adds a lot to a game i think... I honestly can't imagine it being that much more than the latest painkiller version.......
 
Painkiller runs like buttur on my crap comp and the gfx are very good. Hl2's gfx are probably at least 20x better.
 
Painkiller has great graphics and runs great on my computer.
I can set the game to 1600x1200 and get kick-ass framerates.
 
Raziel-Jcd said:
Painkiller runs like buttur on my crap comp and the gfx are very good. Hl2's gfx are probably at least 20x better.

heh yeah it even runs smooth on 25 fps
it does't jitter it just slows down
 
Half way through playing Painkiller with an FX5600 i upgraded to an X800XT and the difference in gfx was amazing. i cant wait to be able to run half life on full settings baby, ohhh yeah
 
Painkiller to me is like a pretty version of Quake 3.......

Half-Life 2 wins hands down.
 
Though the latest iteration of the PAIN engine does look nice, i'd still have to say Half-Life 2, due to all the complex dx9 specular shaders and pixel shaded lighting effects, looks better. :dork:
 
Painkiller was an enjoyable game...the graphics were pretty good..But half-life 2 will of course be alot more detailed..but I think gameplay is much more important than graphics so HL2 beats Painkiller by far relative to gameplay.

EDIT: but of course many people (and I am not refering to anyone in this forum or anywhere else) will not by a game because the graphics suck. Lets face it..games with good graphics get sold more than games with bad graphics.
 
Unfortunatly you can't really look at one game to gauge how well another will run. But, I predict HL2 will run better than all other games currently using "next-gen graphics effects". Why? Because Valve has been much more subtle with the use of effects than most other games. Take a look at Far Cry. EVERYTHING seems to have a shader applied to it, and why? Clothing ends up looking like it's all leather, and everyone's skin has oil all over it and every bit of building is made from plastic. It looks freaking rediculous, and I guarantee after playing Half-Life 2, we'll all look back at Doom 3 and Far Cry and what have you and say "wow, how over indulgent, everything's wrapped in saranwrap! (for those of you who don't allready think that ;) )
 
I agree with assassian... even playing painkiller demo it seems that that light bloom on the ground effect and just the "glow" on everything was just to much and almost made it ugly

I hope they use it only in good places in hl2 where it looks awesome.... just not ALL the time
 
Style means more than detail, and that's what Valve brings to the table.
 
painkiller was really cool, loads of enemies on screen pretty decent grapich, but still playeble fps.
 
painkiller is awesome, but not as good as hl2.
but they both use the same physic engine :) Havok
 
Painkillers environments were kinda cool, I felt the player models looked pretty ****en horrid though, out of proportion and plain. i guess that's what you have to do when you have heaps of enemies on screen at a time.
 
Infinitely depressing atmosphere, mindless killing. Barely any health or ammo. Weapons suck, bad level design, bosses were pathetic (save for the gargolye guy, that was a good showdown), and terrible music.

Come on, if you're gonna have a rampage game, theres gotta be tons of goodies and its gotta be bright. Like Serious Sam--divine.
 
In performance wise generally it isn’t how good a game looks, or how pretty the textures are (that counts for memory usage and yes... can slow down your system but with 1GB of 333MHZ generally don’t worry).

Painkiller was a good looking game, but HL2 I think will have more work into the models and textures, the whole reason that People can fly (Painkiller Developers) didn’t work on that aspect so much is that there are a lot of calculations with physics <- that’s what matters.

HL2 will have a lot more detail, but I think they would rate about the same in detail when you count the amount of models you have on the screen. So in my opinion Painkiller will use more of your system all up.
 
DoctorGordon said:
Infinitely depressing atmosphere, mindless killing. Barely any health or ammo. Weapons suck, bad level design, bosses were pathetic (save for the gargolye guy, that was a good showdown), and terrible music.

Come on, if you're gonna have a rampage game, theres gotta be tons of goodies and its gotta be bright. Like Serious Sam--divine.

Personally, i have to disagree with everything you said except for mindless killing...

But i respect ur opinion :)
 
No comparison. Painkiller is not even in the same league.

:LOL:
 
oh, i dunno

SS looked corny but Painkiller was more creepy
 
Painkiller was a very well made game, the special effects looked nice, environments were well created and overall it was lots of fun - but HL2 will DEFINATELY look better.

There's just no contest, you can tell by the screens and bink videos. Painkiller had a decent engine (DX8) and was well made, but HL2 has a ground-breaking new engine (DX9) and has had an incredible attention to detail put into it. HL2 hands down.
 
i wouldnt call source groundbreaking in the graphics dept. Physics = groundbreaking. Graphics/performance wise the source engine seems a bit screwed up to me. Even if you lower the res u get no performance increase in fps. First game ive ever pld to be like this :/
 
How Dare You Compare Hl2 To That Puny Thing Called Painkiller? Its The Worst Game Ive Ever Bought
 
ukfluke said:
i wouldnt call source groundbreaking in the graphics dept. Physics = groundbreaking. Graphics/performance wise the source engine seems a bit screwed up to me. Even if you lower the res u get no performance increase in fps. First game ive ever pld to be like this :/


I don't know what your system specs are, but ever consider your graphics card isn't the bottle neck? i.e. lowering the resolution takes the load off a piece of equipment that wasn't struggling anyways? Alot of people seem to complain about this, and from what I've seen it's been a sub-par processor to blame most of the time, what with all the physics calculations needed and such.


And my opinion of Painkiller. I downloaded the demo, 10 minutes later I deleted the demo. Make of that what you will.
 
my pc ..2800 + cpu, 9800pro, 1024 ram

you could be right and its a cpu thing altho i dont know what cpu u would need to get better performance at lower res. I think the engine is just a bit funny
 
My point was if changing the resolution doesn't help than it's probably not your Graphics card.
 
HL2 Vs My dog. HL2 Vs Dishwasher HL2 graphics Vs REAL LIFE.

"half life 2 would pawn reald life noob"
"You gotta realise that the physics and graphics are far better in Hl2 then real life. Are you dumb or somthing?"

What's with all the Vs threads? They're just easy comparisons where one fan whines to another fan that his game could beat up his games dad.

I think these are stupid. That's all.
 
Back
Top